Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Unlabeled sexual orientation

I think we need a lesson???
Ok, were all entitled to our opinions.... but some people's opinions posted here clearly show that they are completely lacking in this topic. I am going to list sexual orientations that people have recommended this article to merge, give their description, and clarify why they are wrong.


 * Unlabeled Sexual orientation: A person who does not label with a sexual orientation. THAT'S IT.... NOT THING MORE, NOTHING LESS. If you question it past that, you will confuse yourself, which many people here are doing. Stop trying to over complicate it. A person with a unlabeled sexual orientation may have sex with someone of the same sex, they many not. May have sex with someone of the opposite sex, may not. May have sex with animals, or they may not. It all depends on the person, you can't try to generalize everyone with an unlabeled sexual orientation.


 * Anthrosexual: A person who is attracted to humans, generally used to desrcibe a person who sees past a persons gender, and 'sees the people, not the gender' Would not be appropriate to merge unlabeled Sexual oreintaiton in here because it is a label, which defeats the purpose.


 * Absexual: More of a fetish then a sexual orientation. You get turned on by avoiding sexual behavior. Don't have to tell you why this would be an inappropriate merge....


 * Pomosexual: A coined term to describe a person who shuns sexual orientation labels, and intern refuses to label with a sexual orientation. This term causes much confusion because you are using a label to describe not having a label, which can be very oxymoronic in my opinion. Because of this very big distention, it would be best to keep the two articles separate.

--cooljuno411 20:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bisexual: Bisexual implies a label, and implies an attraction only to men and women. A particular individual who does not label with a sexual orientation may find other genders (not a man or women) attractive, which would contradict bisexuality.
 * You aren't understanding, apparently, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sources, verifiability, notability.. of which "Unlabeled sexual orientation" has none.. zero. Yes, we DO understand that there are people who do not label themselves anything. BUT we also understand that there can't be an article on it because without any verifiable 3rd party sources, it's nothing but original research - an article from someone saying this is how I feel just doesn't cut it on Wikipedia. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)